Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Michael Mukasey, the last of the Bush administration's Attorneys General, has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that purports to be a defense of those attorneys who have defended terror detainees in court against the attacks of Liz Cheney and Andrew McCarthy. But he rather quickly reveals an ulterior motive in equating the attacks on those attorneys and criticism of the Bush administration's torture proponents:
More recently, we've witnessed a campaign to impose professional discipline on two former Justice Department lawyers, John Yoo and Jay Bybee, for legal positions they took as to whether interrogation techniques devised and proposed by others were lawful--a campaign that also featured casual denunciations of them as purveyors of torture.
He then ties the two issues together:
This is all of a piece, and what it is a piece of is something both shoddy and dangerous. A lawyer who represents a party in a contested matter has an ethical obligation to make any and all tenable legal arguments that will help that party. A lawyer in public service, particularly one dealing with sensitive matters of national security, has the obligation to authorize any step or practice the law permits in order to keep the nation and its citizens safe. And a lawyer who undertakes to represent someone whom his neighbors--perhaps rightly--revile as a threat to the public welfare is obligated to bring his talents to bear just as forcefully in favor of that client as he would if he were representing Capt. Alfred Dreyfus, the French artillery officer who in 1895 was found guilty of treason and sent to Devil's Island for little more than being Jewish.
But this equivalence is absolutely false. The job of a private attorney defending a client is entirely different from the job that John Yoo and Jay Bybee were hired to do with the Office of Legal Counsel. If an OLC attorney has a client, it is not the president or any other policymaker -- it is the law itself, especially the Constitution.
When the OLC is asked to give a legal opinion, they are asked by the executive branch to make a binding ruling on the meaning of the law; they are not asked to provide the best possible defense for the president's policy preferences. The president has plenty of attorneys at the White House who do that job. The difference is spelled out on the OLC's own website:
Our Office is frequently called upon to address issues of central importance to the functioning of the federal Government, and, subject to the President's authority under the Constitution, OLC opinions are controlling on questions of law within the Executive Branch. Accordingly, it is imperative that our opinions be clear, accurate, thoroughly researched, and soundly reasoned. The value of an OLC opinion depends on the strength of its analysis. Over the years, OLC has earned a reputation for giving candid, independent, and principled advice--even when that advice may be inconsistent with the desires of policymakers. This memorandum reaffirms the longstanding principles that have guided and will continue to guide OLC attorneys in preparing the formal opinions of the Office.
The Office of Professional Responsibility, which has a long track record of absolving DOJ attorneys of accusations of wrongdoing, after a thorough investigation of the matter, concluded that Yoo so flagrantly violated his ethical duty to objectively represent the meaning of the law and acted instead as the president's advocate that it amounted to intentional professional misconduct that was so serious that it should be reported to the bar associations so he could be stripped of his law license.
This is not even in the same universe as a private attorney defending unpopular clients in cases where those clients have been found to be innocent 75% of the time.
Politics
Comments
You come close to the key difference:
There is a fundamental distinction between the role of the lawyer representing his client in court and that of the lawyer trying to keep his client out of court.
In the first, the deeds are done and his role is to get the best possible judgment after the fact. In that case legal contortionism is warranted (if sometimes sleazy.)
In the second, though, his role is to anticipate what a court is likely to find and advise his client to play it safe. Legal contortionism in advance of the deed itself is practically begging for a bad outcome, since it only works if the Court buys a strained interpretation of the law.
The greatest offense here, IMHO, is that we've taken the court completely out of the loop and accepted the utterly fascinating principle that one can obtain absolution in advance of the fact by retaining a lawyer to write a contorted legal opinion -- which is, by itself, automatically becomes the law absent any judicial review whatever. Assuming you follow the guidelines one has paid a lawyer to write, you're golden.
I really think this principle is going to revolutionize criminal law, especially for high-roller organized crime.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 19, 2010 2:38 PM
Posted by: llewelly | March 19, 2010 3:35 PM
2
I think that's what he said.
OHHHH ZING.
Posted by: Buffoon | March 19, 2010 4:13 PM
One good thing has come out of Mukasey's having served as Attorney General: He is not a federal judge anymore.
If I ever have the misfortune to be a criminal defendant, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be judged by somebody who could be so dumb, partisan, and reflexively pro-government as Mukasey has shown himself to be. Sadly there are many other judges like him.
Posted by: Tom | March 19, 2010 4:29 PM
Mukasey also assumes that torture is an effective means of ensuring national security. This is a questionable assumption: expert opinion generally does not agree with it.
Posted by: Bill Poser | March 19, 2010 9:13 PM
D.C. Sessions @ 1 - great post.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 19, 2010 10:19 PM
Yoo and Bybee are purveyors of torture; they willingly lied about torture being *LEGAL*. Those people should be disbarred and banned from holding any government post whatsoever - not even a janitor in a Federal or State building.
Posted by: MadScientist | March 20, 2010 6:04 AM
Bill Poser: "Mukasey also assumes that torture is an effective means of ensuring national security. This is a questionable assumption: expert opinion generally does not agree with it."
Torture, defined broadly enough, self-evidently is effective. Otherwise, just how is it one will get a man to tell one things that conflict with that man's self-interest? By hurting him, to whatever degree.
MadScientist: "Yoo and Bybee are purveyors of torture; they willingly lied about torture being *LEGAL*. Those people should be disbarred and banned from holding any government post whatsoever - not even a janitor in a Federal or State building."
And yet Obama's Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair testified before Congress that summary assasinations of U.S. citizens on foreign soil are now permissible. But I know, I know, Bush bad, Obama good. Let's hope the sense of moral superiority you get from pullng the lever in the voting booth for a black man has not clouded your sense of proportion.
Posted by: Amalek | March 20, 2010 7:15 AM
Amalek:
You don't come here often, I take it. People who are commenting on this particular thread are not notably pro-Obama or pro-democratic party.
It would appear that you're a concern troll and a racist. I'm usually a bit less circumspect--I just call out assholes--but since I don't remember reading one of your comments before, I'll hold off on lumping you into the same group as the other concern trolls that visit this blog--for now.
Posted by: democommie | March 20, 2010 8:29 AM
Ah, but unless those things are also true, knowing them is not going to help national security.
Posted by: Andrew Wade | March 20, 2010 8:51 AM
Amalek @ 8:
To assess torture in a vacuum as you do here is fatally flawed. Professional interrogators argue that torture is less effective than professional techniques since interrogators are able to better filter good intelligence from bad. They will argue that torture is a superior method if you are trying to get detainees to tell you what you want to hear, such as Cheney ordering torture to falsely get al Qaeda to admit ties to Iraq.
In addition we also need to assess the ramifications of using torture vs. professional interrogation techniques. The top military interrogator in Iraq claims that the number one motivation of the detainees we interrogated in Iraq that were al Qaeda was Americans torturing Muslims, especially at abu Ghraib, where their treatment was in perfect compliance to the orders SECDEF Rumsfeld signed along with President Bush under the guidance of VP Cheney. There are many other blowback results beyond the fact that we lost far more American blood and treasure in Iraq given our torture policy where no evidence has been released showing any efficacy at all*. A few of many examples would be less cooperation by other countries, mental cost to those who tortured on our behalf, losing the moral high ground on this fight, and less ability by moderate Muslims to help us ostracize their jihadists.
Amalek @ 8 stated:
Please provide a citation. I smell a fallacy of balance of argument. Especially since it appears you are comparing one person's possible abstract testimony to a pattern of demonstrated behavior employed by many.
*There were arguments by Dick Cheney and a CIA Analyst (in an ABC News interview a few years back) who just published a book (I forget his name) that we did get actionable intelligence where both pointed to specific unreleased reports. However after those documents were released those reports revealed that all the good intelligence was garnered by professional interrogators or Mr. Cheney was just plain lying.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 20, 2010 9:16 AM
@MadScientist - I disagree. I think janitor, entrance guard, or other high-visibility, low-prestige position in the same buildings where Yoo and Bybee once worked would be fascinating object lessons for their successors.
Posted by: BobApril | March 20, 2010 11:18 AM
democommie,
I could never, never have anticipated such a response from you, demo: if I do not toe the line of the vision for the world in which you have invested copious amounts of emotion then I am a blinkered "concern troll", a "racist," and an "asshole" justly assigned the status of untermenschen in your 'moral' firmament. It's all so scary and unfathomable to you, careful you do not become unmanned!
Andrew,
"Ah, but unless those things are also true, knowing them is not going to help national security."
I spoke of "torture, defined broadly enough," or 'unpleasant coercion' if that suits you better. Do not do violence to by words.
Michael,
"To assess torture in a vacuum as you do here is fatally flawed."
I was making a general and abstract point. But to categorically reject the interrogation technique of "torture" as never, that is never, yielding actionable intelligence is I think naive.
"The top military interrogator in Iraq claims that the number one motivation of the detainees we interrogated in Iraq that were al Qaeda was Americans torturing Muslims, especially at abu Ghraib, where their treatment was in perfect compliance to the orders SECDEF Rumsfeld signed along with President Bush under the guidance of VP Cheney."
Citation? Never mind, I'm inclined to take your word for it, although your explanation of the motivation of al Qaeda operatives is I think too restricted to the proximate. It was al Qaeda that blew up the Al-Askari Mosque at Samarra to stoke the fires of civil war. Why so if their concern is with the rank-and-file of their fellow Muslims? Certainly al Queda has its own sectarian sympathies (i.e., Sunni), but more broadly, their aim is to kick the West out of the East, and of course all that Caliphate jazz.
"Please provide a citation. I smell a fallacy of balance of argument. Especially since it appears you are comparing one person's possible abstract testimony to a pattern of demonstrated behavior employed by many."
Google it for yourself, I am not imagining it, nor am I lying. Also, google "Dr. Aafia Siddiqui," a U.S. citizen whom the evil men that control our nation tortured. Moreover, I would make the counter accusation that you retreat into intellectualizing in lieu of facing the clearly developing patterns of repression by our government applied to 'the other' now, but which will be applied to 'us' later. And why? The same reason Iraq could only be held together by Saddam's iron fist, ethnonationalism is not going away, it is an ineradicable part of the human condition. All attempts to make it go away, in the end, will do much more harm that good, unless you don't mind living in a police state; personally I'll pass.
Posted by: Amalek | March 20, 2010 2:50 PM
Amalek:
Thanks for confirming my suspicions, asshole. Do try to answer the commenters who waste their time punching holes in your bullshit stories.
When asked for a citation, failing to provide one is prima facie evidence of someone's either being stupid or lying. It's a sure ticket to the dunce's corner.
Posted by: democommie | March 20, 2010 6:04 PM
Amalek @ 13 stated to me:
Naive? I was the one that added context that you can't judge torture in a vacuum as you did and now defend here. Your description of torture being self-evidently effective without providing any evidence while also stripping all context is one of great naivety given the very fact that professional interrogators always frame their position around the context of optimizing the ability to gain actionable intelligence and since our adventures in Iraq, the possible blowback that comes from employing torture. The professionals argue its not as effective, and given the negative ramifications, requires one to argue for its efficacy only within a properly broad context. In Iraq we didn't encounter mere "possible blowback" but instead President Bush's policies resulted in catastrophic blowback, his policies became the number one reason al Qaeda was able to recruit men to go and fight us in Iraq.
See the link below referencing Matthew Alexander along with the link here of the FBI's Ali Soufan, who was the second most successful U.S. interrogator at getting actionable intelligence (Ali Soufan interrogated Abu Zubaydah and discovered who Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was which led to his capture). Mr. Soufan states:
Soufan also provides another negative consequence to the torture:
If you want to make "general and abstract point" fine, but at least make it empirical. You failed on that point as well which should have been simple given your claim that torture's effectiveness is "self-evident".
Amalek @ 13 stated to me:
It appears you are conflating what motivated young men to join al Qaeda to fight us in Iraq which I'm referring to in this thread with the motivations of the leadership of al Qaeda. Those are two distinctly different motivations by two distinctly different groups. I'm well-versed on both, particularly after reading the history of al Qaeda in Lawrence Wright's excellent The Looming Tower.
Re Amalek's "Cite?, then not. . ." This is from "Matthew Alexander", the military's top interrogator in Iraq and the man whose team of professional interrogators discovered al Qaeda's Iraq commander, who we then killed. Money quote from a column he did though his book provides a more empirical argument; it's titled How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq. Mr. "Alexander" states:
The harshness in my tone in these comments to you is because your abstract promotion that torture is self-evidently effective has no empirical evidence that I'm aware of and you yield none in your last comment in spite of my previous request coupled to the results we suffered in Iraq. The fact is that our politicians get away with what we don't find imperative. Given the fact that America is nearly perfectly ill-informed on the efficacy of torture and the harm it caused our troops, this mundane and in your case, virulent ignorance stifles the political capital necessary for the current or future Administrations to criminally investigate and if warranted, indict and convict those who administrated torture.
Even if Mr. "Alexander" is engaging in some hyperbole, the reality is that we currently have no evidence of torture's efficacy while having clear evidence that as an interrogation technique it is far inferior relative to professional interrogation techniques. When we couple that to knowing American soliders were wounded or killed by members of al Qaeda motivated to join and kill us because of Abu Ghraib we learn how dangerous it can be for people to pollute the public square with unempirical opinions that when employed, lead to the loss of blood and treasure now and possibly in the future since our torture policy is still viewed as effective and neccesary rather than ineffective and a primary reason so many American soliders were killed or injured in Iraq. Especially since it appears the primary motivation to torture some of al Qaeda's leaders was our hope that we could get them to give up a believable lie that they were in operational cahoots with Saddam Hussein in order for at least VP Cheney if not President Bush to save their legacy regarding their fiasco in Iraq.
And yes, I'm also extremely cognizant of al Qaeda's leader's primary motivation to fight us having read several books on the topic, particularly The Looming Tower. That is what you refer to with your comment regarding "their" wanting us out of the Middle East. But our presence alone was not the primary motivation that caused lower-ranked jihadists to fight us in Iraq, it was the fact that we tortured their fellow Muslims.
Amalek @ 8 stated:
I countered @ 11:
Amalek @ 13 stated:
I never stated you were lying, I accused you of creating a fallacy of argument where no reasonable balance appears to exist. I was merely providing you with an opportunity to defend your argument where I was already supremely confident you wouldn't provide a cite since no rational equivalent argument exists for your comparison. So thanks for validating that for me by failing to do so.
Seriously, you compared the testimony of one person still in the Obama Administration (Dennis Blair) on a hypothetical when I assume (given the lack of a cite) he was in the Bush Administration as equivalently bad to the actual torture policy of President Bush which led to lost blood and treasure in Iraq and argue for equivalency, "I know, I know, Bush bad, Obama good". Do you really stand by such an absurd assertion based on what you are comparing?
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 20, 2010 6:10 PM
"The professionals argue its not as effective, and given the negative ramifications, requires one to argue for its efficacy only within a properly broad context."
Within the full breadth of the context of my own conception and understanding of the world, there is no reason, none, that any Muslim should be tortured by Westerners. We should not be over there, and they should not be over here. I would be more than happy to do a deal, which is: we withdraw from their ancestral lands, and in return, they will accept the repatriation of their people. The War on Terror is a joke. If Muslims, or some Muslims, are so hell bent on attaining nukes and consuming our cities in nuclear fire, even at the cost of tens of millions of their own facing nuclear annihilation in retaliation, then all counter measures are ultimately folly. This is a 'war' we cannot win, not on the terms we seek to fight it. Certainly not on the grounds of the mushy fantasies liberals have of 'modernizing' and 'moderating' them as Muslims are alleged to be subsumed into the capitalist liberal 'democratic' world order. When they actually get the vote, they vote according to tribal loyalties. You see, they don't do collective shame, you will never be able to shame them into the rejection of their peoplehood. Only a womanly, self-righteous fool could ever swallow that line, and that is not they. Unfortunately, it is us - well, not me, but my fate, as well as yours, is bound to our people, right or wrong, for good or ill.
Posted by: Amalek | March 21, 2010 12:47 PM
Amalek @ 16,
Given your changing the subject, what am I to believe regarding your previous position torture is effective relative to other options? What am I believe regarding your earlier point that the Obama Administration is morally equivalent to the Bush Administration when it comes to torture?
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 21, 2010 1:59 PM
Most commenters employ a calm, rational presentation of their arguments. There are a few, due to laziness, mental imbalance or being drunk on the group-think inherent in some blogs, whose prose runs afoul of rationality.
Labeling a person as a 'concern troll' is a trend that seems to have been gaining popularity within a certain group.
As far as I can tell, a 'concern troll'; is a person who does not agree %100 with the labeler.
Is there another definition?
Posted by: Pinky | March 21, 2010 6:42 PM
Pinky - Here ya go.
No, no don't thank me, almost anyone with half a brain can do a simple internet search. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 21, 2010 6:49 PM
I spent one autumn working as a concern troll.
First, I'd make people answer a riddle before crossing my bridge. Then I'd recommend that they take a sweater, because it looked like it was going to be a chilly night.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 21, 2010 7:26 PM
You are to believe that as our country becomes increasingly fractious due to the Brechtian demographic changes we are experiencing torture will be employed increasingly as an instrument both of interrogation and of terror against the American people. In early 2009 the Missouri Information Analysis Center released a report to state and local law enforcement telling them to be on the lookout for 'right-wing extremists' who could be spotted by such things as Ron Paul and Constitution Party bumper stickers. MIAC contracts with the Department of Homeland Security. The Ron Paul/Tea Party movement is an expression of the exasperation at the absolute arrogant unresponsiveness of the political class to their desires. They do not want to be drowned in the bottomless seas of the Third World; they do not want the very last vestiges of an ability to live a dignified life to be stripped from them due to the plutocratic liquidation of the national economy; they do not want to be told that they are evil incarnate for wishing to live on in the country they once knew, the country their ancestors built; they do not want their sons to be sent to die in the desert for the sake Israel. They do not want it! And no amount of attempted brainwashing, no measure of ritual shaming will in the last get them to accept it, as it is manifestly not in their interests to do so. The door will soon be closed on their ability to effect what was done against their will and to their sheer detriment from the start via democratic means.
Posted by: Amalek | March 21, 2010 9:58 PM
Amalek "The Ron Paul/Tea Party movement is an expression of the exasperation at the absolute arrogant unresponsiveness of the political class to their desires."
The Ron Paul movement*1, sure. The Tea Baggers? No way. They are only exasperated when the "unresponsive" "political class" isn't theirs. When it's not theirs; Psalms109 and imprecatory prayer. When it is, suddenly it's Romans and anything less that absolute obedience is "unpatriotic".
I've got no respect for selective exasperation. None.
"...drowned in the bottomless seas of the Third World...the plutocratic liquidation of the national economy...sent to die in the desert for the sake Israel."
I'm sure you've forgotten a few bits, but that looks an awful lot like the Republican Party platform.
"...they do not want to be told that they are evil incarnate for wishing to live on in the country they once knew..."
Yeah, sure. I'd be more amenable to that talking point if, a) their memory of the past bore even the vaguest relation to the actual thing and b) they weren't willfully ignorant, manipulated boobs who view things like "actual facts" as "elitist".
You've watched the rallies. You've seen the signs. Whatever glimmers of actual thought there are drowned in a sea of misinformation, doublethink, misremembered and forgotten history, mostly fueled by astroturfed fear from the same Hate Machine they've been running with since Nixon noticed that white Southern males tended to have issues with brown people.
*1. Also a pretty good light jazz band, if you're hip*2.
*2. You're not hip.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 21, 2010 11:38 PM
I missed this:
"The door will soon be closed on their ability to effect what was done against their will and to their sheer detriment from the start via democratic means."
And they've shown their outrage, consistently, by voting, consistently, for the Party whose platform, consistently, with its heavily pro-business/anti-labour program, pro-Big Tar rights/anti-little people rights, and pro-Law/anti-justice programs*, consistently, screws them. Consistently.
*Not false equivalence or anything, but the Democrats also have issues (far too few were complaining when the money train was running full-steam). "Having issues" is on a lower scale than making those issues your Party's foundation.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 22, 2010 12:44 AM
Modusoperandi,
You speak of things you do not see out of blindness.
"They are only exasperated when the "unresponsive" "political class" isn't theirs."
There is distinction in the political class only within a narrow spectrum. You cannot tell me, if you know anything at all of what goes on in this life, that there is even as many major political/intellectual/financial elites that oppose the globalist agenda, and all that implies, as you could count off on the fingers of one hand. Just who do you mean, Dick Army, the self anointed 'leader' of the Tea Party movement? I don't wish you have a laugh at your expense, but you may leave me no choice.
"When it's not theirs; Psalms109 and imprecatory prayer."
Christianity is a faithist belief system that for those of European descent of the lower IQ variety models adaptive behavior and until recently, though still but to a quickly diminishing degree, served as a marker of ethnic/racial particularity. At some level you must know that. You don't see yourself whipped up into a neuralgic frenzy of indignation at the comparatively boisterous manifestations of black Christianity, or the rather garish expressions of mestizo Catholicism, now do you?
"When it is, suddenly it's Romans and anything less that absolute obedience is "unpatriotic"."
Your conception of Republicans any longer being a cryptic expression of the ethnic interests of white people is delusional. As delusional as your liberal messianic vision of an age of the Universal Brotherhood of Man being ushered in if only white manifestations of religiosity and white ethnic cohesion (rather a feeble phenomenon in this day and age) can be gotten rid of. Wake up.
"I've got no respect for selective exasperation. None."
Your mental models as to explaining social phenomenon are as paltry as theirs. They are stumbling in the dark at this time in articulating just what policies of state are in their ethnic interests, just as you fumble at pathologizing those interests.
"I'm sure you've forgotten a few bits, but that looks an awful lot like the Republican Party platform."
Just who do you mean, the aforementioned Dick Army, John "Mad Dog" McCain, whose godparent to his child is the president and CEO of La Raza ("The Race"), your favorite Pavlovian spittle elicitors Bush and Cheney? You need to open your eyes.
"a) their memory of the past bore even the vaguest relation to the actual thing"
A country in which their people carved out of the wilderness, in which they were able to live sovereign and free to a greater degree than their ancestors in Europe had known. I will not waste my time defending my people whom I love against the impossible standards of moralizing twits.
"b) they weren't willfully ignorant, manipulated boobs who view things like "actual facts" as "elitist"."
Present trends persisting those of European descent will cease to exist as a genetically and culturally distinct people(s). This has gone well beyond a mundane quibble about policy, this is an issue of existential proportions. And anyone who thinks that our beautiful and precious people have willingly gone to the block can go hang. Of course they have been manipulated, and to a degree now verging on the genocidal.
"Hate Machine"
That is in this misbegotten age all you have to conceptualize the will of a people, the evolved expression of their very being to live and not die. There are not words, there is not enough venom on earth to express my bottomless concept for that kind of 'thinking'. And what is your reward in the end, placing yourself atop a petty pedestal competing for status points with other white liberals whilst using non-whites as mere props in your squalid little game?
How many average black people do you actually associate with on a regular basis? Do you live in a predominantly black neighborhood? Do you realize the economic impact the influx of mestizos has had on black folk? I friggin' doubt it.
"white Southern males tended to have issues with brown people."
Genetic similarity theory, my 'friend', genetic similarity theory. People across the board mate and associate assortively per genetic similarity. Even wealthy blacks in Southern suburbs do it. So do you.
Your cheap moralism is not more important than the very continued existence of our people. You can take that one to the bank, because it's gold, 'friend'.
Posted by: Amalek | March 22, 2010 1:37 AM
Amalek "Christianity is a faithist belief system that for those of European descent of the lower IQ variety models adaptive behavior and until recently, though still but to a quickly diminishing degree, served as a marker of ethnic/racial particularity. At some level you must know that."
Sure. Call me when saying that God's will is tax cuts doesn't rally a good third of the country. Call me when faith-based sex-ed is no longer pushed on kids to the exclusion of comprehensive sex-ed. Call me when the Theory of Evolution no longer has to run the gauntlet of goofs just to get taught properly in high school. Call me when "the gays" get to waste their lives in loveless marriages like the rest of us, just as God meant them to. Call me when Planned Parenthood gets offices in places like Lynchburg. Call me when we can actually criticize the worst of Israel's hawks instead of supporting them on their march to their own destruction. Call me when "atheist" isn't a smear in public discourse. Call me when the least worrying thing Pentecostals do is talk gibberish to themselves, amongst themselves.
"You don't see yourself whipped up into a neuralgic frenzy of indignation at the comparatively boisterous manifestations of black Christianity..."
Dancing and singing along? Should I be angry at that?
"...or the rather garish expressions of mestizo Catholicism, now do you?"
Congratulations, I had to look up that word. And, no, I don't care about their manner or eccentricities of worship, either. The pope (and anyone else involved in consistently, and temporarily, protecting the reputation of the Church over the well-being of those that support it), on the other hand, needs a good slap up the head.
"Your conception of Republicans any longer being a cryptic expression of the ethnic interests of white people is delusional."
Obviously. That's why they're soooo supportive of groups like ACORN which, among other things, help poor brown people. Those people don't vote Republican. Brown people. Don't. Vote. Republican.
"As delusional as your liberal messianic vision of an age of the Universal Brotherhood of Man being ushered in if only white manifestations of religiosity and white ethnic cohesion (rather a feeble phenomenon in this day and age) can be gotten rid of."
I'm a liberal. Telling me what I think doesn't work so well. We're rebels, you see. Bad seeds. You don't want to get mixed up in our crowd. The brownshirt alone will mark you as a douche. Maybe take a jiffy marker and write "Phish" on the front of it.
I try to be pragmatic and reality-based. The reality is that the Right (and the Right's Right) walk like a honky and quack like a honky (from rich Republican to poor Tea Bagger). Pragmatically, I have no idea how to talk to people inculcated against reality (Tea Baggers) or people who have forgotten how to dialogue in good faith (Republicans).
"Wake up."
Considering the paucity of facts in what you've put forward thus far, you're not selling me on whatever-it-is you're selling. Something about the terribly dangerous tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I assume that the wretched refuse of other teeming shores is equally, if not more, dangerous.
Congratulations, you made me use the word "thus". Don't make me do it again. I'm just crazy enough to!
"A country in which their people carved out of the wilderness, in which they were able to live sovereign and free to a greater degree than their ancestors in Europe had known."
Really? I'm quite certain that the number of hundred year-old Tea Baggers is quite small. The rest seem to have that rosey, Mayberryish 1950s America in mind. You know, the reality that only existed if you ignored how ugly things were under the surface. Sure, dad had a good union job at the engine plant, but eight hours a day for potentially thirty years doing the same two actions over and over and over again filled him with that special, helpless rage that took his heart at forty eight. Mom's ideal homemaker life was so rigid and empty that she drank herself to death. Big brother, the lucky one, got to go to college. Sis' got knocked up at sixteen and got stuck with the same life mom had. Little brother became a man just in time to die in 'Nam (back before the hippies cost us the war). Then the brown people got uppity. Something about "rights". After that it gets fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure that Carter is to blame for most of it. And Clinton, too.
"I will not waste my time defending my people whom I love against the impossible standards of moralizing twits."
Perhaps you should quit, then. You're doing a terrible job so far.
Look, I have redneck'd relatives. Make no mistake, they are good, solid, honest, forthright people. Then they get talking about their "other" and the human fascade falls away. Combine the rigid in-group/out-group social structure and their willingness, ne zeal, to follow in-group authority and you've got a powderkeg of badness; one that the Right has ably used for quite a while. Even if the Tea Baggers are more than they appear, where they don't run a TB candidate, they'll vote Republican (and where they do, if the TB win, they'll still vote for most of the same damn crap the Republican Party is for).
Either way, they're still in the pocket of the same people who've screwed them so badly. That they've gone willingly, as with the recent unpleasantness on healthcare reform and welfare and public school funding and any number of other issues where the collective benefit exceeds the individual cost...just to make sure that their "other" don't get none, well that just takes the cake.
"Present trends persisting those of European descent will cease to exist as a genetically and culturally distinct people(s). This has gone well beyond a mundane quibble about policy, this is an issue of existential proportions."
I know, right? This is why we have to band together to defend ourselves, armed and ready with a hair-trigger will to cut out the cancer that rots the Homeland from within before the rats and the cockroaches corrupt our redblooded redbloodedness.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get my jackboots polished.
"And anyone who thinks that our beautiful and precious people have willingly gone to the block can go hang."
If that has anything to do with the sentence, I don't see how. "They" are not stealing our jobs here. "They" are doing the jobs that nobody wants, with no perks, no benefits and no stability. "They" are not stealing our jobs "over there", either. If "they" were, the protest signs outside Walmart would have entirely different text.
"They" are not ruining America, any more than the Irish or the Italians or the Poles or the Ukrainians did before.
Anyway, is a mocha future really so bad? Your grandkids will save a ton of money on sunblock.
"Of course they have been manipulated, and to a degree now verging on the genocidal."
And they still are. By most of the same people. And they still can't see it. And they still ignore you when you point that out. And the more facts you show them, the stiffer they get in their resolve that you're not only wrong, but evil. How can one save a group of people who refuse to help themselves? How can one save a group that would, and has, willingly cut off its own nose to spite the out-group's face?
"That is in this misbegotten age all you have to conceptualize the will of a people, the evolved expression of their very being to live and not die."
And what is the Right now but a Hate Machine for profit? Beck's paranoid nuttiness, Malkin's malevolence, John Boehner's ambivalence to the facts, Rush's sheer "Rushness". Rove isn't an aberration. He's an upgraded Atwater. Atwater was an upgrade from the previous version.
"Hate Liberals", "Hate Muslims", "Hate Taxes", "Hate 'liberal activist judges", "Hate ACORN", "Hate the ACLU", "Hate Planned Parenthood", "Hate 'Red Tape'", "Hate...vaguely socialized and wildly incomplete healthcare", "Hate...them". That's all they've got left.
"There are not words, there is not enough venom on earth to express my bottomless concept for that kind of 'thinking'."
Oh, get off your fucking highhorse. They don't pay me enough to put up with such puffery.
I didn't make the Hate Machine. I didn't think it up. I didn't design it. I don't drink from its fountain. I try not to support it. It's there. Getting pissed at me for calling something what it is is, frankly, bullshit.
Don't mistake the Machine for its soldiers. And poor, scared, white Southerners are its soldiers. Oh, heck, do mistake it. Until they let the harsh light of who crushed their dreams them shine into their heads (with the necessary realization and admission that they were, and are, willingly helping to further enscrew themselves), they are the same thing.
"How many average black people do you actually associate with on a regular basis?"
I have no black friends. It's not that I'm a racist, it's more a matter of local demographics.
"Do you live in a predominantly black neighborhood?"
I really must not be a big-city boy, because I've never lived where there's an "X neighborhood". Even "Chinatown" was mixed. I don't know much about foreign cookin', but the spice aisles smell really nice.
"Do you realize the economic impact the influx of mestizos has had on black folk? I friggin' doubt it."
What, a new bottom rung appears? That's how America works. I blame it on the Irish, comin' over here with their popery and drinkin' and weird food and foreign language and stealin' all our jobs! Grumble grumble.
"Genetic similarity theory, my 'friend', genetic similarity theory."
So, I assume you think that "is" makes it an "ought"? Are you that much of a slave to your DNA that tribalistic race-baiting is justified?
"So do you."
I do not! I get my pussy wherever I can! So there!
"Your cheap moralism is not more important than the very continued existence of our people."
I'll take "cheap moralism" over your "amoralism" (if not "immoralism") any day, and it's not because I think I'm superior to you. It's because, from what you've put forward here, you're a terrible human being.
While you're here, I've got a question: When I shave my head, do the eyebrows stay or do they have to go? I'm getting conflicting information from the others. And when are we gonna run out and step on some necks, anyways?!
"You can take that one to the bank, because it's gold, 'friend'."
Oooo. "Friend" in spooky quotes. I think you're kind of a douche. That said, you're still my brother. Even if you're a honky. Honky.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 22, 2010 3:24 AM
MO - "Look, I have redneck'd relatives. Make no mistake, they are good, solid, honest, forthright people" - you know, assholes. ;)
-----
Amalek - Europeans DON'T HAVE a distinct genetic make-up, they're a mongrel mish-mash of all the groups that moved around, and moved into Europe. All those genetic forms themselves mutated from genotypic progenitors some 195,000 years ago (including Africa) or around 70,000 years ago (outside Africa), besides, the distinction between even the most widely differing humans is absolutely tiny, statistically insignificant.
You're basing your 'race angst' on a largely imaginary criterion. Looks like you got fooled again! - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 22, 2010 3:58 AM
"Anyway, is a mocha future really so bad? Your grandkids will save a ton of money on sunblock."
A Brown Future is not a Bright Future, it is a dysgenic future. If you're as young as I am, don't worry, you'll live to see all your sanctimonious horse dung shown to be just that. America will be transformed into a combination of Mexico and Zimbabwe. Sounds like fun to me!
Dingo,
Just why is it I get the sneaking suspiscion you don't know what the hell you are talking about, eh?
Oh, wait, here's why:
"We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic
population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure
Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African
American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States
and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed
near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/
ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On
the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within
each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/
ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.
Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed." - Tang H, Quertermous T, Rodriguez B, et al. Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies. Am J Hum Genet. Feb 2005;76(2):268-275.
I recall debating some leftist shithead and he claimed such studies do not in fact indicated that individuals of common descent whose ancestors have undergone genetic differentiation due to geographic isolation DO in fact cluster together genetically when tested, but that such tests indeed are indicative of "deeply ingrained cultural attitudes". LOL!
What a pathetic little faith liberal humanism is.
Posted by: Amalek | March 22, 2010 8:14 PM
Amalek, I've heard it said that we're all the same on the inside. You're not. You're ugly.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 22, 2010 10:33 PM
Mod,
You like PC skepticism, because it's safe; because you can feel the thrill of 'rebelling' and being a 'smart' guy, without actually doing the former or being the latter. You really challenge nothing, and only reinforce the prevailing zeitgeist, to which you are wholly a prisoner. If you had lived in years gone by, you would have believed in the prevailing falsehoods just as wholeheartedly. This is the problem with liberals who pat themselves on the back for their 'intelligence', all they do is engage in high-end memorization and regurgitation - but they can't actually THINK! They never really think, not critically.
I challenge you to think new and 'dangerous' thoughts. Do like Don Corleone said, "Be a man!"
Posted by: Amalek | March 22, 2010 11:08 PM
"You like PC skepticism, because it's safe..."
I'm only skeptical of you because your argument is piss poor.
"...because you can feel the thrill of 'rebelling' and being a 'smart' guy, without actually doing the former or being the latter."
I'm not the former and not the latter. I don't know who you're arguing with, but it's not me.
"You really challenge nothing, and only reinforce the prevailing zeitgeist, to which you are wholly a prisoner."
So the prevailing zeitgeist is "You don't have to be a paranoid, racist douche"? That's a pretty good zeitgeist, prevailing or otherwise. We should try that.
"This is the problem with liberals who pat themselves on the back for their 'intelligence', all they do is engage in high-end memorization and regurgitation - but they can't actually THINK! They never really think, not critically."
Now say that to the mirror. Say it again. Repeat it. Eventually, it might sink in to your own thick skull that the little twinge you feel every time you spout your own malevolent, damn fool opinions are your mirror neurons, dying by inches.
"I challenge you to think new and 'dangerous' thoughts."
Your "new and dangerous" thoughts are the same old tribal thoughts that have served modern society so poorly. The world is too interconnected to hide in your shell, little turtle. You can come out. Your sizeable out-group really isn't so bad. They're a bit excitable, that's all. You know, boys will be boys and whatnot. They're just as scared of you as you are of them.
"Do like Don Corleone said, 'Be a man!'"
I am a man! *Pout!*
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 22, 2010 11:37 PM
I'm pretty sure he already is one.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 22, 2010 11:41 PM
"The world is too interconnected to hide in your shell, little turtle."
Apparently the Japanese haven't gotten the memo, and do and will retain their ethnic homogeneity...because they are sane. They do it, and boy do they make it work, but you don't give them shit, because you're anti-white. Btw, it was an Italian who discovered the mirror neurons you refer to. With our genes goes our Promethean civilization building genius. With mongrelization goes its destruction. Something to think about!
Posted by: Amalek | March 23, 2010 12:11 AM
Sadie Morrison "I'm pretty sure he already is one."
I agree with your agreement. And may I just say that if you happen to be a man, you are also.
Amalek "Apparently the Japanese haven't gotten the memo, and do and will retain their ethnic homogeneity...because they are sane. They do it, and boy do they make it work..."
Meh. The Japanese are nuts. It's all the radiation from those giant robots, I thinks. Being compressed together like that probably doesn't help. Rats in the same situation kill each other...which may explain why their structure developed the way it did, to minimize the slashy slashy.
"...but you don't give them shit"
I don't give them shit because they're waaay over there. And they don't know what I'm saying. And when I do go over there in my green jacket, they say "Godzilla!", which I assume means "Hey. How's it going, eh?" Then the tanks start shooting me. Then I get angry and flatten Tokyo. Serves 'em right. Shitty way to treat a tourist. Worse than France.
"...because you're anti-white."
I'm not "anti-white". I'm just not "anti-everybody else".
"Btw, it was an Italian who discovered the mirror neurons you refer to."
Okay. And so?
"With our genes goes our Promethean civilization building genius."
Oh, the White Man's Burden. Is it hard being so great, simply based on a lucky quirk of birth? Is being a honky like being part of a great monarchy? Do you have the "Hapsburg lip"?
"With mongrelization goes its destruction."
The best, most stable, most loyal, most friendly family dog is a mutt. The most twitchy, most riddled with genetic disease, most likely to bite you or go nuts for no reason is the purebred*1.
And why is it that you think "Be afraid of the Yellow/Brown/Swarthy Menace" is actually an argument?
Is it hard being afraid all the time?
"Something to think about!"
Before the rally, you mean?
*1. And why is it, anyway, that the worst, low-down, vicious, eyes-too-close-together, mouthbreathing examples of a race always think that they represent the apex of Man? As though Cletus was really the one who got us to the Moon...
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 23, 2010 12:59 AM
The Japs are a great people. There is mutual respect between us, as the Nips value their manly honor, and concede defeat with stoic dignity. And quite frankly, you will not find more ethnocentric people on earth than East Asians. For the most part, they abhor race-mixing, and look on with bewilderment as we heap up our own funeral pyre. One slant, high up in their gov., don't recall who, said something to the effect of, "What the hell are you doing whitey?!" He was told to shut his pie-hole, not that he was wrong, or that his fellow ching-chongers disagreed with him, just bad PR. They know white people get hysterical about that kind of thing, they probably just don't understand why.
Posted by: Amalek | March 23, 2010 1:30 AM
O_O
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 23, 2010 2:20 AM
Amalek - Apparently you have some reading difficulties
so I'm t-y-p-i-n-g t-h-i-s s-l-o-w-l-y. ;)
The abstract you quoted showed that people know who they are genetically regardless of where they live (how amazing), most strongly in those of African origin1..
It says nothing about rates of hypertension or any other disease between races, nor does it say anything about the amount of genetic difference between any two humans. - Dingo
------------------------------
1. How many African Americans live in Taiwan I wonder?
Posted by: DingoJack | March 23, 2010 4:57 AM
Amelek - "I challenge you to think new and 'dangerous' thoughts."
You first. Do you really think the racist bullshit you're spewing is new? Same old shit we've heard a thousand times from a thousand insecure assholes who need to feel pride in their skin color, because they have nothing else.
Posted by: Taz | March 23, 2010 9:07 AM
Dingo,
That study, and dozens other like it, permanently shatter Lewontin's Fallacy. To wit: a randomly selected white man does NOT in fact share more genetically in common with a randomly selected Chinaman or black man than he shares with a randomly selected white man. He shares, and as that study and dozens other like it demonstrate, more genetically in common with his fellow whites. Race then, is not a 'social construct'. Never let that lie pass your lips again, unless you care to lie, that is.
"racist bullshit"
The truth may be "racist," and yet if it be true, I fail to see how it could be "bullshit." Unless the word "bullshit" means something different to you than it does to me.
Posted by: Amalek | March 23, 2010 8:54 PM
I guess I just don't see the endgame: what if race is not a social construct? So what?
Posted by: jws | March 23, 2010 8:58 PM
So, Amalek, what you're saying is that there's one race which is inherently superior to the rest of humanity?
1. Where the fuck do you get the idea that this assertion is something "new"? Practically every tribe in history has claimed to be the one true perfect tribe, usually when they needed an excuse to enslave or slaughter other tribes.
2. Do you actually have the slightest speck of evidence to support your claim? Any evidence at all?
3. Even if it were true, what, besides your own need to feel special, makes you so certain the "master race" is YOUR race?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | March 23, 2010 9:25 PM
That opens the door intellectually to beg these questions: To what degree do distinguishable human populations, that are in fact extended kinship groups, differ per phenotype? And what are the implications of that for the life lived (how those differences will and do effect your life)?
For instance, what if it can be demonstrated that different human groups have varying group average IQs, to the degree that some are capable of sustaining modern industrial-technological societies and others not? Also, what if it can be demonstrated that multiracialism results in social fragmentation and people are intrinsically disposed to prefer the company of their own kinship group and that therefore merely 'judging people as individuals' avails us none at all in that even cognitive elitism regardless of race is still no solution to both preventing social fragmentation and maintaining a congenial modern society?
P.S. Pardon me, those genetic studies demonstrate that Lewontin's Fallacy is in fact a fallacy, they obviously do not then shatter Lewontin's Fallacy as fallacy, or show that it is not a fallacy.
Posted by: Amalek | March 23, 2010 9:27 PM
Oh. I see the endgame: "White Power!"
Posted by: jws | March 23, 2010 9:42 PM
I wish to perserve my people. That you oppose that, and find the need to pathologize said with descriptors such as "White Power" and "master race," exposes your implicit genocidalism.
If one you love were so genetically altered that they were no longer themselves they would have in effect ceased to exist, or died, or have been murdered. No less a entire people. It is genocide.
Posted by: Amalek | March 23, 2010 9:54 PM
Hey, Amalek, you're perfectly welcome to go off in the woods with your mother or sister or cousin, away from all civilization and all those nasty icky brown people, and have all the pure lily-white inbred babies you want. But you're not content to do that, you want to drag everyone else down to your idiotic level. And you're too much of a lying sack of shit to even come right out and SAY what you mean, much less offer the slightest speck of evidence to support your claims.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | March 23, 2010 10:16 PM
Unless the word "bullshit" means something different to you than it does to me.
Bullshit to you means anything that destroys the pseudo-intellectual rationalization you've constructed to defend your bigotry. Because in the end, it all comes down to action. I shudder to think of the actions you would take - the laws you would enact - in the name of defending your racial purity. Too bad for you - you'll never get a chance.
Posted by: Taz | March 23, 2010 10:33 PM